Despite our air attacks in Libya this weekend, most Middle East experts view the growing rebellion in Bahrain as being far more important to America. Yet according to the BBC's Katty Kay, who was a guest on the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show,” the Obama administration doesn't want the press reporting what's going on there (video follows with transcript and commentary): KATTY KAY, BBC: Chris, we spend a lot of time on the program talking about Libya, but what’s happening in Bahrain is more violent and of much more strategic interest to the United States. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Because of oil. KAY: Because of oil, and because of the 5th Fleet is stationed there. What happens in Bahrain is really critical to America, but it’s in Washington’s interest and the White House’s interest that we don’t report this story very much. They would like that one to go away because there’s no real upside for them in supporting the rebellion by the Shiites. MATTHEWS: And not reporting it helps how? How does not reporting it help? KAY: Because they just don’t want too much attention focused on what’s happening there because they don’t want to be having to be pushed into a position of helping the Shiite rebels there. So what's so important about protecting the rebels in Libya, especially as we're really not sure who they are or what they stand for? The Jerusalem Post reporte d last Sunday that an al Qaeda commander is backing the Libyan rebels. The perilously liberal Huffington Post reported Saturday that some of these rebels are radical Islamists with strong anti-American sympathies. But the Obama administration wants the news media to ignore what's going on in Bahrain because they don't want to help Shiite rebels there? Now, in fairness, there has been no media blackout of the Bahrain rebellion up to this point. However, it's fascinating that a British Washington correspondent is aware that the White House wishes there was one, and it will be very interesting to see if they get their wish now that we've begun fighting in Libya. Stay tuned.
Continue reading …Andrew Sullivan: ‘I Don’t Know Why Anybody Voted for Obama in the Primaries – It’s a Clintonian Mess’
March 20, 2011 No Comment
The far-left in America are having a collective conniption fit over President Obama's decision to attack Libya. Included in the wolf pack is the Atlantic magazine's Andrew Sullivan who despite his preposterous claims of being a conservative appeared on “The Chris Matthews Show” this weekend and said, “I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries…[now] we have this politicized Clintonian mess” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Was the President wrong initially to say Gaddafi must go, getting in so far ahead of everybody? ANDREW SULLIVAN, THE ATLANTIC: Well, I don’t think it’s wrong for a President of the United States to issue an opinion about some madman like Gaddafi. I do think that the American public might have been consulted before the United States goes to war. I mean, we now got, you know, the President tells people after the fact? I mean, you know, we go into a Middle Eastern country, we don’t know the consequences, it’s been hatched by Hillary and McCain. I mean, what could go wrong? [Laughter] SULLIVAN: I mean, when you think about it. And I think it, I’m just, I’m just, I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries. I mean this is a, this, this initiative, this, this, this no-fly zone, this war essentially, is, is a Hillary-McCain concept. A few minutes later, when the discussion changed to whether or not Obama will push for Social Security reform, Sullivan said he didn’t think so, and continued with this same theme: SULLIVAN: Look, we, people who voted for this guy wanted him to let the old politics go. MATTHEWS: Transformational president. SULLIVAN: Wanted him to actually tell us the truth about this stuff and to do the right thing. And that was the appeal of Obama. And two years later, we have this politicized Clintonian mess. Actually, that wasn't the appeal of Obama. That was the lie that he and his media minions including Sullivan dishonestly sold to the American people. If there had been any truth in reporting after the junior senator from Illinois tossed his name into the ring in February 2007, he wouldn't have had a prayer against Hillary. But people like Sullivan bought into the hope and change dream the Obama campaign created and assisted him in pulling the wool over the eyes of enough registered Democrats to beat someone with far more qualifications. Now that the curtain is being pulled back to expose who and what the wizard is, people like Sullivan are so disappointed they feel they need to point fingers at him. However, if they had acted like journalists rather than sycophantic teenyboppers, maybe we'd have someone in the White House right now better suited to handle the many crises facing the nation.
Continue reading …
USS Barry fires Tomahawk for Operation Odyssey Dawn Rebel Fighter Jet Shot Down At Benghazi [Odyssey Dawn] Rebel MIG shot down at Bengazi, two pilots ejected [Odyssey Dawn] Operation Odyssey Dawn : U.S. Launches Military Strikes In Libya WASHINGTON — U.S. and British ships and submarines launched the first phase of a missile assault on Libyan air defenses Saturday and a senior American defense official said it was believed substantial damage was inflicted. Operation Odyssey Dawn – The Washington Monthly OPERATION ODYSSEY DAWN …. With Friday’s reported cease-fire ending quickly, if it ever really started, international military efforts in Libya began yesterday. The Pentagon labeled the mission “Operation Odyssey Dawn .” … “ Odyssey Dawn ” « Red Tory v.3.0 “ Odyssey Dawn ”. By redtory. You really have to love the monikers that the Pentagon gives to its military operations. Presuming they’re not simply the product of some random word generator, it’s curious to speculate as to why that it was … The Implications Of Odyssey Dawn – Irregular Times The Implications Of Odyssey Dawn posted 20th March 2011 in War and Peace by jclifford. Only this morning, by the light of the slowly rising sun, did the terrible implication of the code name for America’s new war occur to me. … A Deficit Hawk's Analysis Of Odyssey Dawn – Irregular Times On yesterday, the first day of Odyssey Dawn , the American military sent 112 Tomahawk missiles into Libya, destroying not just anti-aircraft stations, but also many places classified as “communications centers”. … P0TUS says: RT @BorowitzReport : The Pentagon says no matter how Operation Odyssey Dawn turns out, “we already have a great name for the XBox version.”
Continue reading …How Many Teachers’ Salaries or Years of Funding NPR Does Launching a Tomahawk Missile Cost Us?
March 20, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media I guess now that we’ve decided we can afford to help with air strikes against another country that has a lot of oil that we might be concerned about, we can continue to tell the tax payers that we’re broke and cannot afford to pay for those horrible entitlement programs that you working slugs were expecting like your Social Security and your Medicaid programs. And never mind raising taxes on the “job creators” because their needs must be met at all times whether they’re creating jobs overseas for slave wages or anywhere for that matter. If you’re a corporation that does business in the United States, you must be coddled to. And you stinking low life union thugs must STFU if you don’t like any of this, because you of course are the source of all of our problems and draining the taxpayers in America of their hard earned money. And if you’re a dirty f-king hippie organization like NPR, you must be defunded because we can’t have our taxpayer dollars being spent on any evil liberal ideology being spread around to the rural areas of the country. And of course we can afford this it it ever means raising taxes on the rich. From my buddy Scarce who helps me here and shared this with our group. Deep Thought — U.S. fires 110 tomahawk missiles, each costs $569,000. That’s more than 5 years of NPR federal funding in less than an hour. We’ve got to have our priorities, don’t you know. I am really disgusted with what’s been going on in Libya and Gadhafi’s actions, but am also really cynical about our decision to go in there. We’re supporting dictators that are as bad as Gadhaifi and treating their citizens just as badly, but we’re not doing anything about that or helping to overturn those regimes. If the uprisings in the Middle East and Africa don’t start a conversation about what’s wrong with our foreign policy and what we can and cannot to pay for at home and what we should and should not be supporting, I don’t know what will. The interview with Fawaz Gerges is available at CNN’s website .
Continue reading …Bill Maher Ignorance Update: ‘Obama Says US To Be Major Purchaser Of Brazilian Oil’
March 20, 2011 No Comment
Bill Maher in the middle of last year's crisis in the Gulf of Mexico wrongly stated on national television that Brazil had gotten off of oil 30 years ago. With great irony, President Obama announced Saturday that he wants America to become a major purchaser of – wait for it! – Brazilian oil drilled offshore: Traders are also concerned about protests and tensions in a number of other oil-producing nations in the region. Mr Obama spoke of the US's desire to secure more of its oil from Brazil in future after talks with his counterpart, President Dilma Rousseff, in Brasilia at the start of a two-day visit to Latin America's biggest country. “I have told her that the United States wants to be a major customer, which can be a win-win for both our countries,” he said. Brazil possesses some of the world's biggest offshore oil reserves in the pre-salt area off its south-east coast. “Brazil possesses some of the world's biggest offshore oil reserves.” Got that, Bill? Yet, that's not the only media irony involving this announcement. When Obama suspended drilling in the Gulf as a result of the BP spill, oil-hating media cheered like they had won the Super Bowl. The President has since proposed offshore drilling limits that Republicans are fighting against. If offshore drilling is such an awful thing for the environment, shouldn't it be awful everywhere? With this in mind, it's going to be very interesting to see how Obama's Brazilian proposal gets covered, particularly given recent right-wing calls for more American domestic drilling. With oil firmly over $100 a barrel, and gasoline quickly heading to $4 a gallon, citizens are waiting for a coherent energy policy from Washington that addresses this issue. This became crucial after last week's news that inflation grew more in February than in any single month since 1974. Now add in continued strife in the Middle East as well as Saturday's military action in Libya, and oil prices aren't coming down any time soon. Lest we not forget the renewed No Nukes calls predictably coming from the Left and their media minions in response to the nuclear crisis in Japan. This leaves Obama in the precarious position of having to formulate an energy policy on multiple fronts as our nation stuggles to stay afloat in an economy that could easily slip back into recession if the right decisions aren't made. As this is all happening less than ten months before the first presidential primaries and caucuses, one has to wonder how his fans in the press are going to report energy moves by Obama that could be economically sound but not “environmentally” so. Again, consider this announcement out of Brazil. Although increasing oil imports from that region reduces our dependence on Middle East crude, it most certainly won't fly well with environmentalists opposed to all offshore drilling. More importantly, how does the White House stick to proposed limits in our own waters as we purchase oil from Brazil's? Assuming that happens, how do the Obama-loving media rationalize that hypocrisy to prevent voters from seeing through it? In the end, this announcement out of Brazil has created a lot of work not just for the administration but also so-called journalists that desperately want Obama to get reelected. Sure is going to be fun watching this tap dance. (H/T Weasel Zippers )
Continue reading …Then and Now—Television Series Shows Gay Kiss…And The Apocalypse Fails To Happen
March 20, 2011 No Comment
enlarge Twenty-two years ago, the ABC show “thirtysomething” aired an episode which portrayed two gay secondary recurring characters in bed together, obviously post-coital. The two men never touched, never kissed, never spoke intimately about what they had been doing. Just two men lying in bed together. Religious groups went nuts at the idea. Letter-writing campaigns were launched, ads were pulled and ABC pulled the episode from the re-broadcast line up. It wasn’t seen again until the series went into syndication on basic cable. There was no public outcry about the episode before it aired. Following the broadcast, ABC received around 400 telephone calls with about 90% of them being negative. [3] TV Guide in its “Cheers & Jeers” column gave the episode a “Jeer”, saying that having the men have sex on the first date perpetuated negative stereotypes about the promiscuity of gay men. Five of the show’s regular sponsors pulled out of the episode, costing the network approximately $1.5 million in advertising revenue. [3] ABC removed the episode from the summer rerun schedule out of fear for additional losses. [3] The controversy surrounding “Strangers” in the late 1980s, along with similar controversies relating to early 1990s episodes of such shows as Picket Fences ( “Sugar & Spice” ) and Roseanne ( “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ), led producers to refrain from presenting sexualization of their gay and lesbian characters. As noted by author Ron Becker, “So viewers got to see Carol and Susan wed on Friends , but they didn’t get to see them kiss. And fans of NYPD Blue could hear male hustlers talk about their johns, but the only sex they got to see involved the precinct’s straight cops—naked butts and all. Clearly, chastity was the price gay characters paid for admission to prime-time television in the 1990s.” [4] That was then, this is now On Tuesday, Fox Television aired an episode of Glee where two gay regular characters kissed. And went back for more. And look…not even a peep from Bill Donohue. Well, that’s not completely true. Somebody did have issues with it . But overall, the kiss occurred without any outrage from the religious right. Could it be that we’ve grown as a society? It appears we have…and a recent poll shows that the GOP is far behind most of America on this : More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry , a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post .This milestone result caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes. From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey. The issue remains divisive; as many adults “strongly” oppose gay marriage as strongly support it, and opposition rises to more than 2-1 among Republicans and conservatives and 3-1 among evangelical white Protestants, a core conservative group. But opposition to gay marriage has weakened in these groups from its levels a few years ago, and support has grown sharply among others – notably, among Catholics, political moderates, people in their 30s and 40s and men. The results reflect a changing albeit still polarized climate.
Continue reading …Then and Now—Television Series Shows Gay Kiss…And The Apocalypse Fails To Happen
March 20, 2011 No Commentenlarge Twenty-two years ago, the ABC show “thirtysomething” aired an episode which portrayed two gay secondary recurring characters in bed together, obviously post-coital. The two men never touched, never kissed, never spoke intimately about what they had been doing. Just two men lying in bed together. Religious groups went nuts at the idea. Letter-writing campaigns were launched, ads were pulled and ABC pulled the episode from the re-broadcast line up. It wasn’t seen again until the series went into syndication on basic cable. There was no public outcry about the episode before it aired. Following the broadcast, ABC received around 400 telephone calls with about 90% of them being negative. [3] TV Guide in its “Cheers & Jeers” column gave the episode a “Jeer”, saying that having the men have sex on the first date perpetuated negative stereotypes about the promiscuity of gay men. Five of the show’s regular sponsors pulled out of the episode, costing the network approximately $1.5 million in advertising revenue. [3] ABC removed the episode from the summer rerun schedule out of fear for additional losses. [3] The controversy surrounding “Strangers” in the late 1980s, along with similar controversies relating to early 1990s episodes of such shows as Picket Fences ( “Sugar & Spice” ) and Roseanne ( “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ), led producers to refrain from presenting sexualization of their gay and lesbian characters. As noted by author Ron Becker, “So viewers got to see Carol and Susan wed on Friends , but they didn’t get to see them kiss. And fans of NYPD Blue could hear male hustlers talk about their johns, but the only sex they got to see involved the precinct’s straight cops—naked butts and all. Clearly, chastity was the price gay characters paid for admission to prime-time television in the 1990s.” [4] That was then, this is now On Tuesday, Fox Television aired an episode of Glee where two gay regular characters kissed. And went back for more. And look…not even a peep from Bill Donohue. Well, that’s not completely true. Somebody did have issues with it . But overall, the kiss occurred without any outrage from the religious right. Could it be that we’ve grown as a society? It appears we have…and a recent poll shows that the GOP is far behind most of America on this : More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry , a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post .This milestone result caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes. From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey. The issue remains divisive; as many adults “strongly” oppose gay marriage as strongly support it, and opposition rises to more than 2-1 among Republicans and conservatives and 3-1 among evangelical white Protestants, a core conservative group. But opposition to gay marriage has weakened in these groups from its levels a few years ago, and support has grown sharply among others – notably, among Catholics, political moderates, people in their 30s and 40s and men. The results reflect a changing albeit still polarized climate.
Continue reading …Then and Now—Television Series Shows Gay Kiss…And The Apocalypse Fails To Happen
March 20, 2011 No Commentenlarge Twenty-two years ago, the ABC show “thirtysomething” aired an episode which portrayed two gay secondary recurring characters in bed together, obviously post-coital. The two men never touched, never kissed, never spoke intimately about what they had been doing. Just two men lying in bed together. Religious groups went nuts at the idea. Letter-writing campaigns were launched, ads were pulled and ABC pulled the episode from the re-broadcast line up. It wasn’t seen again until the series went into syndication on basic cable. There was no public outcry about the episode before it aired. Following the broadcast, ABC received around 400 telephone calls with about 90% of them being negative. [3] TV Guide in its “Cheers & Jeers” column gave the episode a “Jeer”, saying that having the men have sex on the first date perpetuated negative stereotypes about the promiscuity of gay men. Five of the show’s regular sponsors pulled out of the episode, costing the network approximately $1.5 million in advertising revenue. [3] ABC removed the episode from the summer rerun schedule out of fear for additional losses. [3] The controversy surrounding “Strangers” in the late 1980s, along with similar controversies relating to early 1990s episodes of such shows as Picket Fences ( “Sugar & Spice” ) and Roseanne ( “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ), led producers to refrain from presenting sexualization of their gay and lesbian characters. As noted by author Ron Becker, “So viewers got to see Carol and Susan wed on Friends , but they didn’t get to see them kiss. And fans of NYPD Blue could hear male hustlers talk about their johns, but the only sex they got to see involved the precinct’s straight cops—naked butts and all. Clearly, chastity was the price gay characters paid for admission to prime-time television in the 1990s.” [4] That was then, this is now On Tuesday, Fox Television aired an episode of Glee where two gay regular characters kissed. And went back for more. And look…not even a peep from Bill Donohue. Well, that’s not completely true. Somebody did have issues with it . But overall, the kiss occurred without any outrage from the religious right. Could it be that we’ve grown as a society? It appears we have…and a recent poll shows that the GOP is far behind most of America on this : More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry , a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post .This milestone result caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes. From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey. The issue remains divisive; as many adults “strongly” oppose gay marriage as strongly support it, and opposition rises to more than 2-1 among Republicans and conservatives and 3-1 among evangelical white Protestants, a core conservative group. But opposition to gay marriage has weakened in these groups from its levels a few years ago, and support has grown sharply among others – notably, among Catholics, political moderates, people in their 30s and 40s and men. The results reflect a changing albeit still polarized climate.
Continue reading …
Informes a la medida “Carlos Pascual habla de la urgente reforma migratoria 15/03/11″ EfektoTV Noticias presenta: El Embajador… Renuncia Carlos Pascual , embajador de EEUU en México – Vivelohoy Carlos Pascual , embajador en México de EEUU presentó hoy su renuncia al presidente Barack Obama, informó este sábado el Departamento de Estado de ese país. “Con gran pesar el presidente Obama y yo aceptamos su solicitud”, … Twitter Trackbacks for Ambassador Carlos Pascual [state.gov] on … Ambassador Carlos Pascual . … Secretary’s Remarks: Ambassador Carlos Pascual : Ambassador Carlos Pascual Press StatementHillary Rodham Clin… http://1.usa.gov/fAYAAU · brucepatrick23 Influential 14 minutes ago retweet … Carlos Pascual presenta su renuncia – Conexión Total El embajador en México de Estados Unidos, Carlos Pascual , presentó hoy su renuncia al presidente Barack Obama, informó este sábado el Departamento de Estado de ese país. Carlos Pascual deja la embajada Clinton asegura que ella y el presidente estadunidense están particularmente agradecidos con Carlos Pascual por sus esfuerzos por mantener la moral y la seguridad del personal norteamericano después de los trágicos tiroteos en México … Renuncia Carlos Pascual como embajador de Estados Unidos en México … Hoy, 19 de marzo de 2011 la Secretaria de Estado de Estados Unidos, Hillary Rodham Clinton anunció oficialmente a través de un comunicado la renuncia de Carlos Pascual como embajador de aquel país en México. Carlos Pascual fue el centro … apretandotuerca says: RT @AlecJRoss : Carlos Pascual is a good man and a good diplomat. I'm very sorry to see him leave as America's Ambassador to Mexico.
Continue reading …
As American missiles struck Libya, President Barack Obama doggedly promoted his Latin American agenda Saturday, praising Brazil as a soaring economic force and brimming market for trade. (March 19)
Continue reading …